>> we are out of time. thank you very much. let's thank our speakers. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

[inaudible conversations]

>> i look at what is coming up tonight. -- a look at what is coming up tonight. two historians share their views on the obama presidency and predict how the president might do. it is moderated by lynn scher. then what is ahead for social media unit -- users. that is at 925 pm on cspan2, watch "book tv".

"before they were presidents." then at 9, james kloppenberg. then discussing jimmy and rosalynn carter. "book tv" in prime-time this month. >> this weekend, on cspan2. justin martin looks at his life. latest.n williams' and on codey afterwards --

"after words". sign up for book tv alerts. the weekend schedules in your in box. >> the top commander in afghanistan said international forces killed the insurgents responsible for dealing -- downing helicopter. he proved reporters from afghanistan and provided an update on operations there as well as the ongoing helicopter crash. this is half an hour. >> good morning. good evening in afghanistan. i am honored to introduce the commander of the international assistance force, also known as isap.

u.s. marine corps general john allen. he took command three weeks ago. he commands a multinational coalition of troops drawn from 48 troop-contributing nations. he joins us from his headquarters in kabul. the general will have some opening comments and he will take your questions. i will turn things over to you. thanks. ladies and gentlemen, thank you for taking the time today to discuss our nation's efforts in afghanistan. you know last friday night we lost 30 american service members when a helicopter went down. we're saddened by the loss of these magnificent americans. these magnificent americans. we honor their courage , duty,

and sacrifice. we offer our eternal gratitude for of the defense of our people. this was a difficult military campaign. this was a singular incident in a broader conflict in which we're making important strides and considerable progress. we face challenges ahead. there will be tough fights in the days to come. as president obama noted in his june address, where on a path towards achieving our goals in afghanistan and we will face the obstacles ahead. with a steadfast determination to prevail. to that end at midnight on 8 august, coalition forces killed the taliban insurgents responsible for this attack which we assess was in our pg round. -- rpg round. the mission was to dismantle

[inaudible] this does not ease our laws but we must and we will continue to relentlessly pursue the enemy. all across afghanistan the insurgents are losing. losing territory and leadership and weapons and supplies and losing public support. the insurgents are losing resolve and the will to fight. they face relentless pressure from coalition. the progress is visible. last month began the process of transitioning security responsibility to afghan governments and forces. our military is working hand in hand with our civilian partners to secure the gains we have made by strengthening the afghan government and by advancing economic opportunity. we're committed to working with and strengthening our afghan and strengthening our afghan partners because we know that only they can secure their

company -- country. they have made immense strides in their professionalism and effectiveness. there securing territory, safeguarding populations and when necessary, fighting and dying for their great country. we lost eight afghans. brave afghans and we pay tribute as well to their service and their sacrifice. i have met troops across the four corners of afghanistan. i can say with certainty our servicemen and women remain steadfast in their commitment. we remember why we're here and we know what is at stake. our troops are out on the battlefield committed to succeed. they have my full and complete support and they know they have the support of a grateful nation. thank you and with that i will take your questions. >> before we get going, the

general has a limited schedule so i would ask you to hold your questions. >> i was wondering if you could talk about the investigation. it is beginning so you have no answers yet but i am wondering if you could tell us what your questions are that you pose for the general to answer in his inquiry and what information you might be looking for. >> the investigation just beginning. we should see it began very surely here. -- the investigation is just beginning. the questions we're asking is what is the cause of the crash and the lessons were learning and hopefully feeding back into the process of evaluation for our missions to improve them however we can.

the investigation is just beginning and we anticipate it will take some time and we look forward to the results of that investigation. >> [inaudible] can you be more specific? was this an airstrike? was this an air strike -- ground action? did you kill the taliban leader you were going after? how do you know that you killed these people and who did you kill, and briefly, how concerned are you that so many special operations forces were put at risk in one place. the seals coming in, the rangers on the ground, was that a good idea? idea? >> across afghanistan that night there were multiple missions similar to this one. our special operators are operating on a regular basis for

in multiple missions every single night. this was one of many that were occurring in afghanistan that night. as many of these missions do, they generate intelligence. the intelligence that has been generated to this point lead us to believe there was an enemy network and the purpose of this mission was to go after the leadership of this network. as this mission on fold it, we saw some significant success occurring on the objective. there were elements that were escaping. and in the course of their time to depart the objective we committed a force to contain the element from getting out. of course in the process the aircraft was struck by an rpg and crashed. this was one mission that occurred that night, one of

many. we will continue to -- in the context of special operations and nightly special missions, these will continue unabated. with respect to the enemy specifically, all these operations generate intelligence. the intelligence that was generated from activity on the objective but also the activity of those who were looking to flee, then give a certainty you who they were. we tracked them as we would in the aftermath of any operation and we dealt with them with a kinetic strike and in the aftermath of that we have achieved that they in fact were killed in that strike. >> are you comfortable that committing this many special operators, this many seals to a

mission where the there were not troops in imminent danger but to contain people trying to escape the battlefield, are you confident and comfortable that decision was correct and justified? >> all the decisions that are made are based on the unfolding mission and in fact that was a decision that was made at the moment. i am comfortable that was the right decision to be made at that time. >> nbc news, back to the taliban fighters you killed. it sounded like they were responsible. how many did you kill? did it include the taliban leader you were going after? can you give us a sense of the scope of the initial fire fight they were involved in on friday night that the chinook wind down on the way to and how many ended

up killing in the ensuing search? >> let me make a couple of comments. there are a number of issues i will not get into specific detail about because the investigation remains ultimately to be accomplished. i will not going to the operational details. when i will tell you is on the original objective we were pursuing the taliban leader. we anticipate that we would encounter not just the leader but his followers that -- as well. some of them got off the objective. we were able ultimately to determine as we continue with respect to the network where those elements ultimately ended up in the aftermath of the strike in the original objective.

one night we were able to deliver ordnance and to kill them as well. >> you said earlier that the taliban is losing across afghanistan. losing their result and will to fight but in six weeks we have seen a number of pretty major victories from their perspective. in addition to this tragic incident involving the chinook. they attacked the intercontinental hotel in kabul and the president's brother in kandahar was killed. on what basis do you say they are losing based on these hyper- violent attacks? >> the intent of the search that began in the middle of july of 2010 and continues on was to create the opportunity for us to roll back momentum.

we have done that significantly. across the country. in particular in the south. we achieved security gains in helmand province in kandahar and helmand province in kandahar and other places in afghanistan. we stopped the momentum and rolled back. we have seen improvements in governance and seen the development of economic opportunity. it is not uncommon in insurgency when insurgents are losing ground to resort to spectacular attacks. while we have seen their ability to inflict violence, we have seen those numbers coming down in recent weeks. we do expect the enemy will target those areas where you get a high profile payoff. that is what you see with these attacks. what is not necessarily apparent every single day is in respect

to the local police units, in villages and towns, these villages that seek to embrace afghan local police in the village stability operations program are mobilizing their communities for their security. that is not widely understood or covered. that is a great example of where the taliban are losing ground and influence. they can no longer get inside the population of these areas. another area where we are succeeding is in the area of reintegration. that is an afghan program. it is a relatively small -- new program. we are beginning to see the taliban foot soldiers come forward and seek to rejoin society. to date, we have reintegrated the afghan population -- they have reintegrated more than 2300 and there are 30,000.

-- [inaudible] ultimately in a program that has been well structured by the afghans with our support. we anticipate some more success in that regard as well. it is a function of security operations, a function of local police. it is a function of the establishment of credible governments, economic opportunity, it is an indicator that they are losing by numbers of them that are coming forward and joining back into society for reintegration. we're not declaring victory. there are going to be long days ahead and some heavy lifts. there are indicators that lead us to believe we are moving clearly in the direction of achieving our goals. >> you talked about the search

troops. i want to ask you as you know, all those troops will be pulled out of afghanistan next year. before the end of the fighting seasons. i wondered if you could tell us what impact that will have as you talked about being on the path to achieving our goals. do you plan on rewriting your campaign plan, shifting u.s. troops to the east earlier than anticipated? >> thanks. it is important to understand the surge will -- reduction, the movement of troops back to the u.s. will occur in two phases. as the president indicated, 10,000 were part -- depart by the end of this calendar year and another 23,000 in september. we are well into the planning first portion. we are adapting our campaign plan.

that adaptation includes the shifting of certain resources in areas where we believe we have been during security gains. the afghan national security forces are coming on the field in extensive numbers. by the time that our additional 23,000 troops come out by the end of september of next year, we will have seen sunday thousand national security forces come on to the field. it is a trade-off in terms of the afghans who are joining us in the battle space with the forces that will be coming down. are we going to change our campaign? we are constantly evaluating the campaign and reevaluating the campaign to ensure that it is -- we're able to focus the resources nashua -- necessary to accomplish our objectives. we will probably to the sometime

after the new year. we intend to work south into the fall. we're going to fight all winter and attempt to disrupt enemy safe havens throughout the winter. the opportunity for him to rest and refit and we will continue in the summer to disrupt the enemy and spend a particular amount of attention in the east. the time for those decisions remain to be determined. we are doing the staff analysis now and i will be making those decisions in the relatively near future. >> david martin with cps. to be precise. did you eventually kill the specific taliban leader that you were after in the original operation? and you seem to be saying it was an airstrike but you do not quite say it was an airstrike. was it an air strike which you

used to get him? used to get him? >> two separate questions. do we get the leader that we were going after in the initial operation? we did not. we're going to continue to pursue that network. we continue to develop the intelligence and we will continue to exploit that target. we will remain in pursuit. the other individual that we were able to develop as targets as a direct result of the intelligence that became available as a result of this, we will relocate them with certainty and we will strike them with an airstrike. >> jennifer griffin with fox news. was it a breach of standard operating procedure to put one unit on one helicopter and were you short of helicopter assets that night? in the initial fight how many taliban were involved and how many were escaping when that unit was called in?

>> i will not get into the details associated with how we assign units to its battlefield transportation and tactical ability so i will not get into the details associated with that. in terms of the numbers on the objective that is an operational detail i would rather not discuss with you here. we did determined there were a certain number that came off the objective and ultimately when we the followtarget for on strike for this operation, that number was less than 10. >> general, from "the london times". i am told that one seal is equivalent to six infantrymen. the death of six seals is equivalent to the death of a

company of troops. you were increasingly having to turn to these guys to carry out a quick reaction or follow-up operations and therefore there will be in perhaps more danger of this sort of strike. the taliban will get wise to this. >> counter-terrorism operations occur within the larger context. you are correct. that as our surface area decreases the role of counter- terrorism operations and these kinds of special missions will become prominent. it will not become the sole mechanism by which we achieve battlefield decisions but it will play a role. with that as an anticipated outcome, we will pursue a

special operations on a regular basis. and -- now and for the foreseeable future. it will be an adjunct and component of the larger counterinsurgency. >> was it a mistake to use the ch-47, using that kind of asset in this operation, something you are either not going to do in the future or what you are -- what is your thinking on that? >> we have run more than a couple of thousand of these nine operations over the last year. this is the only occasion where this has occurred. we routinely use this airplane. it is an important means for attack. the fact that we lost this aircraft is not a decision point

over whether we will use this in the future. it is not uncommon to use this aircraft. >> can you say what kind of aircraft carried out the air strike last weekend? was it a drone or manned aircraft, or what, sir? >> f-16. >> you read the un report that came out last month and i wanted to see what your reaction was to the part that said [inaudible] civilian causalities caused by air strikes. fixed-wing aircraft have gone up. apaches were not responsible for most casualties from terrorist strikes -- air strikes.

>> i am sorry, i did not catch that question at all. >> i will do it here. it was about the report last month regarding civilian casualties and one of the conclusions about apache's being the largest contributor of civilian casualties in their operations, and your thoughts on that. that. >> first any civilian casualty -- i have been clear that we will do all that we can. we will insure that on those occasions that we have to apply. we will avoid with every possible measure taken to avoid

casualties. casualties. there have been occasions where we have delivered their ordnance that have inflicted civilian casualties. every time that occurs we investigate the reason for that and we seek to learn from that. we are careful about the application of force in that regard. on any occasion where we have civilian casualties, we are introspective and will ensure that we learn from that. we intend not repeating it. >> to michalczik from "usa today." j im michae4l. l. i was wonder about progress uc with -- you see with afghanistan and taliban leadership. >> i am not involved between

the governments. while we do have a significant involvement in the process of reintegration, we're not involved in the term reconciliation at least at my level. >> can you give us a sense the kind of support that taliban and al qaeda leaders have across the border and has it come down or increase in the last several months after the killing of osama bin laden? >> i have difficulty with that question. >> since the death of bin laden, your assessment of the level of support, taliban and al qaeda from across the border. from across the border. >> we have not seen any real discernible outcome that the

death of osama bin laden has had a direct affect on the battlefield. there is rhetoric among the in some places that they are conscious of the death of osama bin laden but that has not become a new cause. has not increase the numbers that we have seen in cross border operations or inside afghanistan. at this juncture i would say that if there will be an effect of the killing of osama bin laden in has not been filled on the ground inside afghanistan. >> thank you for time this morning. morning. of us understand the decision to deploy one of your forces. when a call comes in, commander has many assets. the decision to send the forced to do this, was it because of

the value of the target? were the closest and fastest? this is one of the investigations will get. thank you. >> again as you are aware, these missions have a number of packages associated with them. i will not get into the details of how and why we're ultimately make a particular decision on any particular mission. this force was part of the mission. with that, i will in the -- end their response. >> just as she began talking to us, the man you killed aside from the shooter, mullah [unintelligible] and it says he was a taliban leader. was he not the target you were going for the night of august 6 and if he was not, who was?

>> i would prefer not to discuss the operational details of who we were going for but do you -- you do have the name of the leader that we dealt with. >> while it is not -- has not been determined that any fighter was the sole reason for that crash, it did take fire from several insurgent locations on its approach. can you tell us what are the kind of weapons that were fired at this helicopter, whether you know it was hit by any of this weapons aside from the rpg that so many people said was likely cause of the crash? cause of the crash? >> moll farms parmele were the weapons that we encountered that night. we do not know -- small arms were the weapons that we encountered that night.

the purpose of the investigation was to assess that it was in fact an rpg and that small arms fire contributed to the crash. >> we are out of time. i will send it back to you, general, for your closing remarks. >> ladies and gentlemen, i want to thank you for your time today. we will always remember the families of the fallen and we will continue to build on the tremendous progress that has been made to date in afghanistan and we're determined in our mission and we will prevail. thank you for your time today. >> thank you, sir. >> thank you, sir. >> coming up tonight.

historians sharing their views on the obama presidency. they also predict how the presidency might do. that is tonight at 8:00 p.m. and the creators of twitter on what is ahead for the social media users. that is with walter isaacson. lots of coverage from iowa. the republican presidential candidates are they're campaigning around iowa. i appear to killer friday at 11:30 p.m. at the state fair with speeches from present form, ron paul, and timbaland a. that afternoon, remarks from

michele bachmann. all that coverage starting friday at 11:30 p.m. eastern. >> this weekend on american history tv will visit the office of the archivist of the united states as he shows historic documents that are of personal interest to him. leon panetta recalls his years working in the republican administration of richard nixon. his eventual resignation, and the switch to the democratic party and on the 50th anniversary of the ill-fated bay of pigs invasion. a critical look at u.s.-cuban relations in the 1950's and 1960's. get the complete weekend schedules at c-span.org/history. >> at today's white house briefing, press secretary jay carney talked about the ongoing violence and unrest in syria.

and the trip to dover air force base to honor the troops killed in the helicopter crashed over the weekend. this is 50 minutes. >> good afternoon. wait for one second. start?'t we i do not have any announcements to make. >> on syria, president obama thinks that [inaudible] president obama to explicitly address that? >> i can tell you a few things about the situation in syria. we have made clear that we believe -- the president

believes that syria will be better off -- would be better off without president assaad. the international community is increasingly speaking with one voice on syria in unified condemnation of his brutality against his people. through his own actions, president assaad is ensuring that he and his regime will be left in the past and the courageous syrian people who have demonstrated peacefully in the streets will determine its future. we have said that syria will be a better place without assaad as i just mentioned, and he has lost legitimacy. the most important thing that we can do right now isn't sure that our actions back of our words. a democratic transition would be better for syria, the region, and the world and we intend to help the syrian people achieve the dignity and freedom they have demanded and for which too many have died. we continue to call on the regime to halt its campaign of violence and arrests, police security back, for lease the

many thousands of detainees, and to respect and act upon the clear demands of the syrian people for peaceful and democratic transition. we will keep the pressure. we will work in accordance with our international partners -- partners and i think it has been noted by all of you that pressure is increasing every day. >> you will not say whether or -- president obama will go further in explicitly calling frofor him to step down? >> i will point out we have been clear about our positions on the actions that president assaad has taken against his own people. the fact we believe syria would be better off without him. we have taken action through sanctions, and we will continue to increase the site -- pressure through a variety of means, working with our international partners to do so. and in any future announcement -- announcements, i will leave to that time. >> on the domestic issue, the president has called for congress to take the debt

commission and the practice -- process seriously.series >> i think every member of congress who was elected and sent to washington to represent his or her constituents has the responsibility to act seriously when asked to deal with such a serious issue and the president expects the appointed members of this committee will do so. both republicans and democrats and i think the speaker of the house's statement expressed the sentiment we share. which is that we need to take action collectively to come together. democrats and republicans to further reduce our deficits and get our long-term debt under control. we strongly believe that the way to do that is to take a balanced

approach. we're not alone. the american people overwhelmingly support the balanced approach that the president supports. republicans and democrats together support the balanced approach. i would think when we are looking at the things that have created the debt and deficit we have it is instructive to remember that we have to look in every area. for those who were in congress in the last decade who voted, for massive, historically large tax cuts that were not paid for and contributed to the debt we have now, who voted and put to worsen the credit card without paying for them, who voted to extend the medicare prescription drug benefit that is not paid for and has added to the deficits and debt, i think that

knowing that, having participated in that there should be an acknowledgement we need to look broadly to reduce our deficits and debt. >> does he have faith that the republicans will take that kind of an open-minded -- >> we believe the committee needs to -- the president believes the committee needs to take its work seriously and it has been mandated by a law passed by congress to do that and to act before thanksgiving, and to come together around a series of proposals that can get bipartisan support, get through congress in a fast-track way, to ensure we have additional deficit reduction. >> last question, quickly. going back to the dover visit yesterday. the media as you of course no were not allowed to cover that directly, were not allowed to see what the president saw. can you explain why the white house put out a picture of the president in a presidential mode, saluting, and the free

press was not allowed to cover that? >> there are a variety of reasons why the press was not allowed to cover the dignified transfer of the remains of those servicemen who perished in afghanistan. and i think you know them, and the pentagon described them. it has to do with normally the families would have to give permission. in this case because of the state of the remains, the policy was the press would not be allowed and that is the defense department pose a standing policy. the reason we were able to release a photo is, it was carefully done so that none of the transfer cases that contained remains were in the picture. it is also the case that because of the units that were involved, there were members of classified units whose identities cannot be remembered -- revealed publicly, who were in a ceremony and we -- it has to be -- they cannot be shown in a photograph. put thoseble to

restrictions and control the white house photographer so that the photograph that release does not cause any of those problems. and obviously we could not for the variety of reasons, bring in the press for the ceremony itself. >> as you know, u.s. and global stock markets are taking another serious hit today. and this time in has been tied to a french investor concerns about french bank's exposure to european debt problems. has the president spoken to or will he be speaking to either president sarkozy or other european leaders about -- to get some rancher -- reassurance they have got this in hand? >> the president has spoken in recent days with a number of european leaders, chancellor angela merkel, president sarkozy, bedminster silvio berlusconi, president zapatero. he has spoken with prime minister cameron and is in

consultation with european leaders on these matters. secretary tim geithner is in regular consultation with his counterparts in europe. we are obviously monitoring these events recklessly and we continue to believe that the europeans have the capacity to do with this problem and encourage them to continue to take actions that do with it. >> that conversation this morning with prime minister cameron, was that crisis related or did he talk to him about -- >> i do not have a readout on the details. i am sure there were a number of topics but i am sure this is one of them. >> did they discuss the rioting in london? >> i do not have a further readout on that. we might have that for you later today. >> the fed painted a gloomy picture yesterday. he said the economic growth was weaker than expected and the unemployment would come down gradually. do white house economists agree?

>> we broadly speaking recognize that the economy has slowed down, the growth has not been where outside economists as well as inside believed it would be at this stage this year. there have been a variety of reasons, contributors to the head winds that have caused that to happen, and we are experiencing some of them now that have to do with our first question. question. we also continue to believe as we believe outside analysts continue to believe, that the economy will keep growing and we need to do what we can to ensure that it does and ensure that it creates jobs at the fastest pace possible, because this president will not rest until he is confident that every american who wants a job can find a job. and there is no greater focus of his work come out of this administration's work, then the economy. -- of his work, of this

administration's work, then the economy. -- than the economy. >> does the administration agree with the fed's assessment? >> i do not think we have put out our own analysis or forecast going forward since the last time it was done and there have been events that would be taken into account as a new forecast were put together so i do not have a new forecast for you. >> tavis smiley and cornell west opposing party tore has rolled into d.c. they have been critical of president obama with his handling of poverty and joblessness. particularly for -- in the most destitute communities. tavis smiley has said the president has forgotten about the poor. cornell west has called the president of black mascot of will -- wellst. wall street oligarchs. and a black puppet of corporate

plutocrats. what is the white house view of this criticism? >> i would say this president is focused on the economy every day and he is focused on those who are struggling. every economic measure he has proposed and every one that has become law because of his leadership has geared-been geared toward helping those folks who were in the greatest stress because of the recession that we were in, the great recession, worst since the great depression and those who are struggling as we emerge from a. his focus on the most vulnerable communities was evidenced when he negotiated with congressional leaders last year on the tax cut extension deal by insisting that, in addition to the payroll tax cut that he insisted be in it so that every american family -- working american family would have on average an extra $1,000 this year, he insisted on an

extension of the earned income tax credit, an extension of the child tax credit, which disproportionately helps those who are disproportionately in need. it is why he insisted in the recent debt ceiling deal that poll grant funding be protected because those two deserve and qualify for quality higher education but are struggling to be able to pay for because of their economic circumstances need the assistance that those grants supply. so this president is very focused on every american who was suffering during these turbulent economic times and the policies that he has espoused and he has pushed take into account very seriously those who are most affected. are most affected. >> peter king

which is an important segment, an important area of the economy. he will, next week, go out into

the midwest, three different states where he will meet with business owners and workers to talk about what is happening economically. they expect the president to propose specific ideas. things that have bipartisan support or should not get hung up in congress. there are things that we can do to have bipartisan support. to unleash entrepreneurial spirit. things that economists say create hundreds of thousands of jobs. they continue to look and hunt for new and good ideas for economic growth and job creation.

>> the president said he would make recommendations. the committee has not formed yet. the president will have various of the ideas about where the things the committee can come together in a balanced way to significantly reduce the deficit. i think it is important to note that the bipartisan approach that he was working on with the speaker of the house, i think the speaker mentioned that had the house passed the budget, had it just become law, there was deficit-reduction.

what did have a chance on a large scale and becoming law and being signed by the president, the bipartisan compromise, not an ideal, but the bipartisan compromise he was working on at the house. they will be designed to draw bipartisan support because this was not to say what we would do that we could control a thing or that they could mandate an outcome >> democratic leadership in selecting the members? >> i think that we in the white house, the senior members saw with the members in congress, democratic leaders, i do not believe that there has been any

specific engagement on that specific engagement on that issue, but -- we made clear that we believed it was important that whoever is selected take the responsibility seriously, and we are optimistic that will be the case. >> let me ask you, what does the president mean when he said he would rather be a good one-term president rather than a mediocre two-term president? >> that that is a responsibility, and you make those decisions according to what is in the best interests of the country. this is simply a way of saying that the purpose of being

president is not to be reelected but to serve the country well. yes? >> when you were mentioning the fed chairman, is that combined with treasury secretary geithner coming in and that they will meet together and discuss the economy? >> he does have a weekly meeting with the president. there is a meeting with chairman bernanke, as well, although ben bernanke will participate that -- in that, as well. >> senator. paul, a republican, is out, saying he wanted to have a no- confidence vote on the secretary geithner leadership. what is the president's response? this is time for a change. after all, a clean break. >> the president has great confidence in secretary geithner's substantial capabilities, and we are glad that he is staying on at the

treasury. i think that a statement like that, it does not really amount to much because, obviously, they would like a different president to be in office, and a leader in the senate say that was their number one objective, so the idea that they what numbers of the team, it should not be all of that shocking. the stock market was dropping. talking about not coming home from camp david this weekend to deal with the downgrade and the soldiers being so tragically killed, and he said he tacked on

his condolences to the pep talk. his condolences to the pep talk. >> any president who has had the office, and the president is focused on what he can do to help the economy grow to provide an economic security as well as economic security.

again, i would just say that criticism is just part of the deal. >> monday at the podium. this was a tea party downgrade. my question is that the liberal columnists would not be jumping on it. they may just disagree with the tea party on individual issues, but they are saying there is a leadership problem. >> i will just repeat what i said. the fact is, what we're talking about the debt ceiling deal and the aftermath, this president made sure, had a bottom line, the number one republican demand, that we go through that charade again with an six months, causing even more harm

to our economy was absolutely not acceptable. he said no, and he assured that that will not happen. it would be extended. using this against the full faith of the united states would not happen again. through 2012. you have to understand that we need to get our deficit under control, because we will not be able to do that to make sure that we can protect the most vulnerable americans and to invest in innovation and the economy to make sure that we create jobs in the future. there is no question that the

reaction to the debt ceiling deal, both with the s&p action and some of the other action has to deal with the concern over the apparent dysfunction in washington that is demonstrated to the american people around the globe. the globe. this was to make sure that we made a down payment in deficit- reduction. but there is no question that had there not been a willingness and congress to threaten the full faith and credit of the u.s. government, to hold that hostage to an agenda, we never would have been in that place.

yes? >> thanks. a bipartisan committee. there is criticism that she chairs a committee. what is the president's reaction? >> they are responsible. they take an oath. we expect every member on that committee to take that responsibility seriously, for democrats and republicans, and i think that it is just silly criticism. the senate minority leader said quite explicitly that is number one objective in office was to have the president of the united states defeated in 2012. i do not think americans are around the world believe that the leaders of congress should have that as their objective. have that as their objective. you know what?

i think they should be focused on the economy than the but, you know what? that is ok because we know we can put aside a lot of the partisan rhetoric and focus on what needs to be done. we do that. the president does that with meetings -- in meeting with members of congress. members of congress. he expects that the other members of this committee will do the same. >> will he stop fund-raising? or will he? >> no. >> you have stepped-up sanctions on syria. why not call [inaudible] >> i gave an incredibly eloquent long answer to that question moments ago. [laughter] i do not have anything to add to 8. -- to it. >> at one point does that become -- -- >> we have taken a number of

actions to increase pressure. i think one of the things you have seen in recent days is the international community including voices in the region adding to that pressure. you can be sure that we have worked toward that goal. so, the kind of growing chorus of criticism aimed at president assad for his heinous actions is not an accident. we are all watching, with horror, what he is doing to his own people, and we are working with our international partners to ensure that pressure continues to be placed and ramped up on president assad. ramped up on president assad. >> i understand why extending

unemployment insurance provides relief, but how does it create jobs? >> the wall street -- i would expect that a reporter from the wall street journal would know this. it is one of the most direct ways to infuse money into the economy because people who are unemployed and not earning a paycheck are going to spend the money that they get. unemployment insurance goes directly back into the economy, dollar for dollar, virtually. it means that every place that that money is spent, it has added business. that creates growth and income for businesses that then leads to more hiring. there are few other ways that can more directly put money into the economy and providing unemployment insurance. unemployment insurance. >> why have we seen unemployment

not drop? >> this is the "what would have happened" argument. what we have seen is, what?, 2.4 million private-sector jobs created? i encourage you and i know you all have contacts in the world, but economic analysts will tell you and told you late last year that the combination of the payroll tax cut and extension of unemployment insurance would have a direct, measurable impact on job creation. of the jobs created this year, a certain number, however many, can be attributed to those actions taken and pushed by the president last year which is why he feels so strongly they should be done again as we emerge from this recession.

that is why he believes very strongly to extend the. tax and unemployment insurance. >> the best argument that you can afford is if we do this again, it will not necessarily get any better -- >> you know that is not how it works. we have to do a variety of things to grow the economy and create jobs. this is one thing that economists of all stripes agree will directly affect growth. a half of a percentage point, i believe, in growth that the payroll tax cut would provide. something like that? and up to 1 million jobs. we do that, and we have that positive impact next year. that does not mean that is the only thing we would do. there are other economic factors, some of which we can control and some of which we cannot.

we cannot estimate what a natural disaster impact might have on the global economy, but we can take action that has a direct impact. >> one question. nbc reported that mayor emanuel positioned himself inches from my face and pointed his finger and asked, "how dare i ask where his children would go to school." >> i have not heard him discuss 8. -- it. >> what do you think? what do you think? >> i think the criticism has been amply covered by the chicago press. i do not have a personal opinion about it.

>> the ceo's meeting with the president is on friday. can you tell us more details -- >> we will have more details -- we do not have those for you yet. i wanted to mention that it will happen on friday. happen on friday. >> as i understand it, the bernanke meeting is part of the regular series of meetings. >> yes. >> how many times -- >> i can get that for you. >> what is his thinking and doing it separately? >> the secretary geithner meeting is a weekly meeting. the president wanted very much to go to dover to receive the remains of our fallen service men yesterday, so it was rescheduled for today. it happened to be on the same day of the meeting that he has with chairman bernanke. but they are separate meetings.

>> can you give us any sense in terms of the regular meetings between bernanke and president, what the point is or what gets done? >> discuss the economy, local or economy. the fed is an independent body that takes independent actions. they speak broadly about the economy. >> how often do they try to do it? >> i will have to get it to you. >> the president will be in new york tomorrow night. york tomorrow night. >> i do not have a preview for his remarks tomorrow. again, i would just say that the president's focus is not on the daily ups and downs of the market which can be substantially down or up. the focus is on what we can do to grow the economy and create jobs, what he can do working with congress to grow the economy and create jobs. i am sure that is going to be the focus of any remarks he makes on the economy.

>> can you explain why the trip to dover was kept secret until he landed? >> that is a good question. i can tell you that it was something we were advised to do. and i will refer you to the secret service about issues of security. >> it was security-related and not about the narrative -- >> correct. >> [inaudible] >> i know the president very quickly said he wanted to go, internally, after he had learned of the events in afghanistan and the loss of life, and it was the loss of life, and it was just a matter of finding out

when the remains would be brought back. we knew for a while that the president was going to go and try to go. >> then the secret service advised you -- >> i do not want to get into this on the podium about it, but i assure you -- the president was very proud to go on marine one flying back. someone on the helicopters said, someone in service, thanked the president for making the trip. he looked up and said, "it was my honor to talk to those families. i can think of nothing better to have done today." so, it was, for anybody who was there, obviously that would be me, but for the people in this room, it was an incredibly powerful experience. the courage and sacrifice that the families demonstrated where really remarkable. yes?

>> around the country, there seems to be a feeling that there is the need for urgency to get something going to get the of economy back on track. can you give us any kind of specific timetable of when the president might be coming up with these ideas that he is talking about? talking about? is the plan to wait until congress -- >> you can be assured i will go congress -- back to what i said before that the president is working every day on his top priority which is the american economy. there are a variety of ways that presidents can do that, and the american people expect them to do that, which is consult with policy-makers in this case because of the global effects we are experiencing, consult with international leaders, meet with business leaders cannot travel around the country to talk to the job creators out in the country about what they are experiencing, and then propose concrete ideas for job creation which he has done throughout his presidency and he has mentioned recently in speaking to you, some ideas that can be acted on right away that would directly

affect economic growth and job creation, and to continue to work on ideas and look for new ideas for increased economic growth and job creation. i do not have an announcement to make on when. there is a great deal of urgency which is why he is working are around the clock on these issues. in terms of new proposals, i do not have a time to give you but i can assure you he is working hard on these issues. >> as the president asked for or will there be white house presence in observance of the operations? operations? >> i do not know if we had that discussion. the committee is still being formed. i do not have any information on that.

>> thank you, jay. as one who stayed up to find the results in wisconsin last night, i was dying to know did the president follow the results in wisconsin and had any opinion at all? >> i do not know that he followed it last night in any case. i am sure he has read the paper this morning, but i have not had a conversation about it with him. >> you said at the beginning that the tax cuts in the early part of the last decade contributed mightily to the deficit, but 2004 until 2006, there was a 20% jump in revenue over the previous cycle, and that was the largest increase in oregano ahoy omb said since 1965. e in revenue from what omb said since 1965.

how do those figures -- >> it is a very convenient slice of the figure when we absolutely no about the time in which these tax cuts were instituted. it was the slowest period of economic expansion, middle-class income stagnated, the wealthiest americans got wealthier, and overall in the eight-year period, there was substantial anemic job creation. in the 1990's under the tax breaks that pre existed, we saw the largest expansion and 22 million jobs created. i would take issue with that analysis. i would take issue of taking that slice and suggesting that somehow, a, the massive tax somehow, a, the massive tax cuts did not contribute to our deficit because they unequivocally did, and that unequivocally did, and that those tax cuts were responsible

for what any measure was a period of anemic economic growth. >> given the severity of the economic problem, i think many of us are asking is should the president do anything extraordinary? for example, short his vacation, call congress back to section. everything you describe shows his attention to the economy. he often travels the country and talks about the economy -- >> i think the president is very interested in those things that will actually be effective. he is very focused on the things that he can do to be effective on helping the economy grow and create jobs. he is doing those things. he is working with his team to

look at ideas for further job creation and economic growth. when you say extraordinary -- i do not think a stunned is what -- a stunt is what the american people are looking for. people are looking for. >> again, i think -- i do not >> again, i think -- i do not have a comment on what he said or what was going to do. the position has not changed. >> [inaudible] >> well, we continue to believe that he should honor the obligations he made and promises he made to begin that transition. april? >> [inaudible] >> [inaudible] -- it seems like they all had the same theme.

the urgency of job creation in the black community. >> he absolutely appreciates >> he absolutely appreciates those meetings and those conversations. he conveys what he takes away which is an incredible passion and focus on the need to grow our economy and create jobs and the amount of suffering that is occurring because of the deep recession that we went through and also because of the falling back of the middle-class in the previous decade. previous decade. so, he is -- and again and, i think i answered this when i responded to the previous question about what he has fought hard for precisely because the need to ensure that those who have been hit hardest by hard economic times are getting the support that they need.

that is why he fought for the extension of the child tax credit bank that is why he recently instituted the extension of the housing loan forbearance program because those who are struggling to stay in their homes, are unemployed, he believes it was essential to help them. help them. i think those efforts to help. >> [inaudible] -- said something that the president has been saying something to out his campaign. something to out his campaign. she said that the job fares were basically hope for the black community. does that ring a bell with the president? black on an, rate, 15.1%. -- black unemployment rate,

15.1%. 15.1%. -- 15.9 %, when the overall rate is around 9%? >> high rates of unemployment are unacceptable, which is why it is his focus to do everything he can and everything we can in washington to address the need for greater job creation for everyone. this is his primary focus every day. thanks very much, guys. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> primetime tonight, sharing views on the obama presidency, including predicting how president obama might do in the 2012 election. it is modern righted by an abc news correspondent. that is at 8:00 p.m. eastern. and then, the creators of twitter on what is ahead for the social users. this is at 9:25 p.m. eastern. the u.s. today announced a new round of sanctions against syria in response to president assad's crackdown . here is a spokesman. >> no, i have nothing.

>> ok. >> should president mashad -- assad step down? >> the focus of our activity, as you know, based upon the secretary phone calls is to continue to strengthen the international it current of condemnation regarding the current activities of the assad regime, and this community of countries willing to call them out, call listeria out for what it is doing is growing, and over the past week, based on their actions, but also because of the

strong diplomacy that we have been conducting with the number of countries. the arab league, the gulf cooperation council, and as i mentioned, the saudi king abdullah, bahrain, other countries taking stands to make sure that what is going on at syria is unacceptable. we got the statement last week, and that speaks to the fast that -- fact that countries are no longer willing to sit by. i think the question now is what message it is the assad regime going to take from this? are they going to stop the violence? are they going to allow a real democratic transition to take place?

we have done some sanctions today. >> speaking of sanctions, where are we internationally? do you feel that the countries that have come forward are back in that effort, sufficient, concrete steps with other sanctions? >> this is very much the focus of the diplomacy that we are engaged with with the europeans, with the neighbors of syria, to encourage, as we said yesterday, as many countries as possible to take national action, to tighten the noose, to make sure that we do as much as possible to create

pressure on assad, and our own sanctions are used to help stop him from having the ability to do that. >> calling for regime change. an announcement could come as early as tomorrow. this discussion is 1.5 hours. >> good morning, everybody. i am with the middle east institute. we are still checking with people. there we go. that is better. let me start again. thank you all so much for your patience today. we have had quite a turnout, and we are still checking people in.

thank you for joining us with this very important issue. we have a series of panelists who are going to be lending their insight into the developments in syria and a potential solution to the spiralling crisis. these last 10 days have been quite horrifying in syria, with those of ramadan crackdown on hamas and others. it is continuing as we speak. hundreds have reportedly been killed. the bloodbath has finally prompted a more robust international response as to what is happening in syria. third, the state department issued a statement. it was rather anemic, but it got other powers meeting. the saudis, who have been

concerned beasley -- who have been conspicuously silent, they took action. there was a six-hour meeting between the turkish foreign minister and assad. supposedly, they laid down an ultimatum. the results of that have yet to be seen. and now, the obama administration is set to issue a stronger statement, asking him to step down, and that will likely come out in the next day or two. clearly, the pressure is building, but the syrians are notoriously immune to outside pressure. this is bound to be making them nervous the syrian defense

minister was asked to step down due to health reasons the other day, and it was reported that he died from his health reasons, while others say that he was assassinated because he was critical of reactions of the regime. i am sure that will be addressed. the major cities remain mainly quiet, especially in one city, where there have been very few of arrests, and how the change will come about and who will help lead the change, of course, that is the million-dollar question. our speakers to they are going to bring their unique insight. for the sake of time, i am going to introduce them very briefly. their full biographies are on the hand of but we gave you. there is the founder and

director of the damascus center in syria and the co-founder and director of the syrian center for political and strategic studies here in d.c., and i should note that he is one of the key voices of the syrian opposition in exile. there is also the executive director of the london-based strategic research and to me vacations center which provides research and commentary on syria to the media and government. he has also been very involved in the protest by using social media to coordinate throughout europe, and we have the ambassador of a leading non- profit organization that works for the middle east, a former foreign service officer. he has served twice in syria, first as the deputy chief of mission and then as ambassador from 2001 to 2003. last but not least, one has very fight -- very kindly agreed to fill in for someone who could not make it today.

he has to leave early, but we are very appreciative of him being there. working for the washington institute on near east policy, he is the author of a forthcoming book, "in the lion's den, an eyewitness account of the battle with syria." please do look for that. it is a great privilege and honor to that everybody with us. i want to thank them for joining us, and also i would like to thank others for their outstanding help. this room clearly is not large enough. i apologize. they have also provided today's lunch, so many thanks to them. i also want to go to a journal we are selling. there are several articles on the muslim brotherhood in syria and one on the regime itself, so take a look at this and do by one on the way out and become a member of the same time. thank you.

i would now like to invite our guest to the podium. >> good afternoon, everyone. i thank you for the nice introduction and for this nice opportunity. let's begin actually with the impact of ramadan, as a part of the uprising. since march, the protests are getting more momentum regarding the size of the protests while at the same time asking for steps of reform, but as there is the response of the regime that has more killings, this is deeper in change and calling for this.

at the same time, it has been for five months. at the same time, the process cannot get the momentum at the same time the core of the regime is still solid. we do not see any defections among the seniors in the government or among the ministers or the parliament. this is why the protestors prepare themselves for ramadan. friday, that became the day of prayer in the muslim society, but that does not mean or reflect that is the main call or the main purpose of the uprising is religion or something like that, because under 47 years of dictatorship and state of emergency, but people cannot get

together, only in the mosques or the churches, because otherwise, you have to get permission to even get that much. and this is why they use the opportunity on friday to start the protests. their number is much bigger than the number of the security officers, the security persons, and this is why the mosque became the main point crystal star the protest, and this is why the regime reacted on that, just one day before ramadan with a huge military operation in the largest three cities which actually became the flash point, and in one area in itself, in the last few weeks, they have a least half a million.

in hama, the syrian propaganda, they are beating that. "the new york times" rogan very interesting pieces, and he claimed himself that he never sought any guns in hama itself, and this is why we give the explanation about the harsh response before ramadan, because they need to send it to the cities that if they do protest, the response will be exactly like in april. they cut their electricity, water. of course, all means of communication, cell phones, and not allowing even that for food or medical supplies. there is a story that we need may be more confirmation about the babies born in the hospital

in hma, where they cut the electricity -- hama, where they cut the electricity, and all of the babies born had died. and this is why the collective punishment became actually for the residents of the city, because the regime, they are seeing if they start to protest, they will punish the whole city. but at the same time, it will affect the number of the people who are protesting, a huge number of people in critical situations. the people who have been killed x c 2000. it is not the will of the

syrians to protest, and it is ramadan in every night in every city. there are youtube videos every day, in the north, in the south, and all over the country, and what is important is that there are leading voices who start talking about why the regime is taking the community as a hostage. in syria, is 10% to 12%, but they belong to the community, and all of the stories about the killings, unfortunate, being blamed the the officers are doing that. the regime also is using the

sectarian language. this is why it became tense between all of the communities, but what is good, in the last three weeks, there are a lot of leading voices from the community asking why the regime is taking us as a hostage with other communities, and we have no such kind of struggle or fight with others, and this is why we cannot see the boys of a well-known novelist, and there was the issue of the former minister of information, when he announced with members what is called the national democratic initiative. unfortunately, this initiative

is not acceptable to the syrian people because he is asking assad to leave. there is one man who is encased with a daughter of another man, and this is, we do believe, such kind of initiative, which there is more frustration among the community about them leading the country. what is good at this time is that this is quite different. this is the message we're trying to send to the community and over the world. it is not like the 1980's. there is no role of the muslim brothers in organizing the protest. the tribes, they have a much more leading role. what is behind the uprising, a

young generation. very young. 63% of the syrians are under 30. and this is why the high number of the people being killed, 1152 under a certain age, and this is why the young is leading the protests, mainly through an indigenous idea and the unions and other type of organization. then, of course, there was the replacements of the minister of defense. the minister of defense is no

connection to the security, and we know from the beginning about the involvement in the attacking of the civilians. not so much with the military in hama. creating more among the army and the people. the syrian army is actually a provisional one, but it is not like libya or egypt, something in between. and from day one, the syrian regime has been trying to involve the army. there are stories about the security in syria. actually, they changed, and this was to confuse the protesters, that there is no institution

they can rely on it. attacked by the security or attacked by the army. the people, they feel that they are fighting alone with no actual international support other than condemnation. we start to hear more voices from the arab league, from the gulf company jerrick -- countries, from the united states, and from the security council. this helps the protesters on the ground to get more momentum to see that the international community starts hearing their voices. then, the replacement of another, this will give you an indication of the army is not really on the same base of the syrian regime in attacking the

civilians, but there is no indication that there is more among the senior generals in the army. what we have, a lot of defections among the lower members of the army, especially the soldiers, and the iraqi rebels. they have groups where the officers, to turkey, they start operating from there, using their contacts to defect. but it is no significant number from the senior army generals to defect or a break from the regime. but in the end, what is more important is the army. having the gulf countries condemn the violence, and king abdullah himself has addressed the syrian people and has talked

to them directly, this has great impact on the people on the ground, because we see that would be important role of saudis in the region, actually leading the force of the international community in libya, but right now, this is why this speech will maybe get more arab countries to do some actions to stop the violence in syria. and basically, along with international communities, especially with some steps with the security council, because the security council issued a statement, and she mentioned, and this is nonbinding and has no influence actually, we're still wishing for a resolution from the security council, not only condemning the violence against the protesters but will

also pushed sanctions and refer to the international criminal court. this international joint effort should be coordinated by the turkish. they are seen as much more acceptable than other international efforts, and turkey, after the visit yesterday, they started with some actions. basic clearly that this is a time of action, and the turkish minister of foreign affairs, he visited damascus 60 times in his term, and this is why he always keeps hearing the same promises, but nothing on the ground. yesterday, he tried to reach bashir al assad, to say clearly

this is a time of action, and we will not wait. the turkish prime minister gave them two weeks. we think this is too long, since the killing has continued, and hopefully, with the announcement of barack obama tomorrow, hopefully that will convince more european countries to join forces to help the syrians and stop the killing. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. >> good afternoon, everyone. thank you. thank you, middle eastern

institute. but the clock ticking on the assads, many are doubtful of the opposition groups as a complete replacement and their ability to work together on transitioning syria into a civil, modern state. historically, the opposition in syria was composed of only the damascus declaration, the kurdish parties, and a wide spectrum of the islamists. there are many new different factions and parties. opposition groups broke off over syria. neighborhoods, towns, and cities founded their own committees to protect their cities and coordinate their work. each city has its own local

committee and media group, but they have formed committees to act together. as a result, these are coordinated together, and over 70% of slogans are expressions of solidarity with other besieged cities. many of those opposition groups evolve and emerge over time, springing fourth bigger committees, the biggest grass- roots groups in syria, the local coordinating committees, llc and others. most gained media exposure as groups, but that does not mean that the syrian streets zero their mobilization to them. srcu and llc have an imperative presence, as they maintain the

unbiased nature of the revolution. people were demonstrating long before those groups were formed. this is largely owed to funerals. people of certain localities in of never been to mosques their entire lives, such as atheists, christians, , and otherwise, started frequenting the sunni mosques to take part of, or sometimes inside to demonstrations. whatever transpires from such congregations, it represents a will of the substantial portion of the population in that particular area. it is important for the aforementioned points. the expectations of one unifying governing body of the syrian -- what syria is currently experiencing is a democracy. millions of syrians are expressing their desire to

persecute the regime. dozens of grass-roots formations and complete political parties have been formed and are being formed to competitively lead syrian society through the transitional period. many of those parties were formed by prominent intellectuals. they have written manifestoes and are nowadays starting to think about party memberships and representation as well as which constituency each would appeal to. they already have started discussing the future constitution and the restructuring of security and armed forces, for instance. most cruise realize they need a government that serves the benefit of all syrians. more movements and political parties will certainly sprout, and counting only on the current ones is premature. it would be better to start

thinking about the actual leadership after all of the syrian factions have a chance to develop into parties. what could be done but is the provision of more support to the inside factions by connecting them with the oxide -- outside opposition groups. there are many grassroots movements at the moment that will help the great drive the transition forward by may be forming a transitional advisory council. the u.s. and the eu could help coalesce groups and individuals from the outside and inside under the same risk. the opposition groups based outside have more understanding of foreign policies and are on the same page of expectations of most inside grass-roots opposition groups, so they are the best candidates to act as buffer between syria and the outside world. however, they should not be

minimized to court nation and should be invested in dow futures key figures go. this is what the syrian opposition is missing, and they could rally inside and outside support. they have been extensively demonstrated inside syria and have participated in conferences abroad. they have suffered the most due to the regime. they would more likely run into a regime member. the regina might be made of one group mostly, but that is only because of the family alliances.

they may try to make the revolution seem sectarian, but that is not true. the people are not fighting a minority, and we have to say this very clearly. they are fighting against a family ruling the country. , fromf the alliance's damascus and elsewhere, that is one of the major reasons for the delay of the demonstrations in the cities. sunni businessmen are more influential with the family. they built their empire on the corruption of the regime. they control most of the syrian investments and companies. they think the regime will certainly collapse.

there is no way the regime is surviving. their control is faltering though. the past 10 days, since the beginning of ramadan, with the demonstrations, the city and the suburbs in these two areas have unilaterally expressed their dissatisfaction. no longer special considerations. they are now getting shot at, and the regime no longer tries to hide its brutality from the europeans. most demonstrators around syria have to face live bullets, even write in the heart of the capital. the clock is ticking for the regime in syria, and the assad

era is over soon, except in court. thank you. >> things. it is very nice to be here today. as she mentioned, i am pinch hitting, so i have to think a little bit on my feet. i did not have that much time to prepare, but given the pace of events, our current focus on syria, i will bring up a couple of important points and probably stand on those of the others. maybe some of you know, but some of you do not, i came to washington about two years ago. i spent about 14 years in the

region, and seven of those were in and out of lebanon, and during that time, when i was in damascus, i worked for a period of time for a charity's gripped by, and the reason why i bring this up is not just to prove to you that i am not a neocon, as i have been branded in the press, or a libor hawk, or whatever money they want to throw at you, -- or a liberal hawked. -- hawk. this was before the syrian economy was cool. they used to tell me, "you just do not get it. they do not care anything about economics. it only cares about politics." well, i can tell you i am not exactly sure about that, but when i worked for the charities, the cherokees were organized and obsessed with one thing, that

during the last time we had this kind of repression in syria, everybody stayed home for about 15 years, more or less, and what do men and women do when they stay home for long periods of time? they have a lot of children. there is an intermediate step that we will not talk about, but they have a lot of children. during that time, syria was among the 20 fastest-growing populations on the planet. syria. and all of those people are now hitting the job market. a lot of people who have worked in the syrian reform, and i think we can put quotes around it, were seeing this come for a long time. they knew that economics was key to their grip on power, and nowadays, even more than before, and i will get into a discussion about very briefly

u.s. policy options at the end. after five months of killing, there is now convergence with arab countries and even turkey. they do not have a concerted plan to get out of this. the last straw really was everybody questioning the wisdom, why would a minority dominated regime launched a massive attack on the eve of ramadan, that they had carried out in 1980 to one of the worst massacres in the history of the middle east? this does not really smacks of a great leadership. steadfastness and flexibility, which is what one used to call it, it just does not seem like a confident pass out of the current crisis. i was just recently in europe

and in turkey, and i can tell you a little bit. i think there is convergence but -- that assad does not know how to get out of this. his credibility has been undermined in terms of any type of political solution, but i think there is not yet complete convergence on what to do about it. i think you'll see president obama, i do not know if you knew this, but syria was desperate -- designated by the treasury department as well as another for proliferation issues. this is as concerns oil payments, and i think as some of you see in the press, and i will talk about this later, the introduction of an energy sanctions bill on syria last week. there have been considerable constraints in the position

since this has broken out. ted is going to go more into this. i will just rattle off a couple. i think it is fair to say that the opposition has come a long way, but it is very difficult to coordinate when in opposition and then such a robust movement on the ground. it is difficult to quarter and eight these two positions. also, the protests are being primarily driven by young people and some of these folks i described earlier, and how they communicate does not necessarily lead itself to coherent leadership. this is natural for these kinds of organizations. again, if they did form a linear structure, the assad regime would probably try to decapitate it, so its strength is also its weakness. the europeans. someone who tells you that the regime never moves and response

to pressure, they were obviously not at the airbase on april 27, 2005. i was there, when the syrians pulled out of lebanon, ok? the syrian regime does move in the face of conservative, multilateral pressure. it does not happen very often. so in this particular case, we are moving towards that. and in net to give their case, it will be interesting to see how that pressure works, vis a vis the syrian domestic policies. again, we do not see a plan for the assad regime to get out of it, but a multinational -- multilateral actions along with others -- for the last two years, in discussions with the united states and the europeans come in exchange for a peace treaty with israel, we're going to drop our sanctions on syria. it would be a quid pro quo, part

of a long process, but this is the beginning of a process, so why would the hardest bargainers in the world put sanctions on the table first that did not matter to them? that is because it does matter. the economy does matter to the syrians. it is a trading culture. contact with the outside world matters, and that is a matter of beverage. we talk about the regime. we talk about the opposition. i do not think anyone is interested in gauging the regime the way it is. you are not going to make a very much headway. on the other hand, we do not just have the opposition and everyone sang it is a fragmented and whatever. no. there is a third option. a coup. this could lead to some sort of transition process and a democratic process. now, we do not know where that is, but the resignation indicates there is a division

around the regime about what to do. i think the community knows that in order for there to be a soft landing for this, or that there does not have to be a hard landing for this. there could be a soft landing. that is not yet clear. very important was the saudi announcement a few days back. why? it allows the other arab countries, bahrain, qatar -- saudi arabia is very influential in eastern syria. i spent a lot of time when i was there. they often have saudi passports. there are family ties that go down into saudi arabia.

these middle industry's export. they use syria as the primary route for truck traffic. there are constraints there. that will get right into the interest rate it will be very interesting to see what turkey choose is going forward. the position is much more subtle and i think we will see

that. last but not least, opportunities for leverage. i think you will see president obama come out and make statements combined with today's announcement on sanctions. i think too much has been placed on whether he has to go. there is convergence on that. i would suspect that president obama will say that at a certain point. i do not know if it will be tomorrow or the next day. the primary area of leverage is energy sanctions. not from the book at them like iran. but oil experts. they account for a third of revenue. in syria, it is only a quarter or a third. it will cripple the regime, but

it will not decimate society. will it affect society? yes, it will. in the face of this kind of brutal crackdown, western leaders both in the united states and europe do not know what else to do. it is a primary area of leverage and i think you'll see it deployed over the coming days and weeks. there has been a bill introduced in the senate that will be accompanied by one in the house. that would be in september. that would give the obama administration additional legal authorities. the designation will allow the -- that will affect this policy. that is about it. >> thank you very much. [applause]

>> i have been asked to speak a little bit about u.s. policy. obviously, i do not represent the administration. i have been out of the state department for a years. i am certainly not speaking for my organization. my daddy won a panel like this, it is perhaps -- my value on a panel like this, i first arrived there as a young political officer. i have served their subsequently as an ambassador. my career it tended to intercept a lot with this regime. it is the only regime that has been around since i was young. [laughter] ever since talks broke down in

geneva, when clinton went -- mets in april of 2000 in geneva. but united states has really not known how to approach syria. what policies -- a lot of policy fights and a lot of just gridlock. the bush and ministration, -- the bush administration tangled with foreign policy professionals, they still did not really prevail. syria was not next after iraq. he was proudly shaken after the

assassination and the demands of march 14 movement with the backing of the international community that syrian troops get out of lebanon. in the end, he became quite confident because he outlasted the u.s., turkey, and saudi arabia helped to break him out of this isolation. he saw the bush administration come and go and he was still there. he became quite smug about it. i think the confident attitude was very apparent and the january wall street journal that he gave after we saw initial uprisings in tunisia and egypt were he basically said, as far as syria goes, it cannot happen

here. democracies need a lot of dialogue and we are in the early stages of that. it was a very patronizing, a very smug interview. one that i hope he regrets. meanwhile, when the obama administration came in, they came in with the idea that we're going to talk to our adversaries. that included syria. while they sent on a voice there, -- envoys there, they never quite got around to naming an ambassador. there were always looking for some -- for syria to give us something tangible that would justify sending an ambassador. it was not and the cards at all. in the end, we did send an ambassador, in december of last year. the good years -- the good news, we got the appointment right.

we sent a very good man to do a top job and he has been doing it in admirable fashion. we also have been fortunate in having others who know syria well over the years to have been involved in advising senior levels of the administration. i believe that the obama administration has been right to be cautious in how it has approached all this. maybe they were misguided and the beginning in thinking that he would be chastened by the offensive dialogue and would leave the movement and help syria to a soft landing.

i do not think chris james go around killing their own citizens if -- regimes go around killing their own citizens if they are ready to reform. that was never really in the cards. at the same time, the administration really was hoping, too, that there would be a more coherent leadership that would emerge from the opposition. maybe a leadership with which elements of the regime could engage in some dialogue, etc. andrew referred to the possibility of a coup. since the backbone of the security services and debbie noncommissioned officer of the syrian military is composed -- and the noncommissioned officer of the syrian military is composed of a minority that has

experienced discrimination and impoverishment, there was the reason they were living up in those coastal mountains of syria. they are going to need some encouragement to move against this family. i think the administration recognized that we did not have the leverage. with libya, we did not have the arab league. we did not have the u.n. security council that was ready to pass any kind of a meaningful resolution with the sanctions. turkey, one of the most important country in this equation other than iran, was

not yet ready to abandon the regime, and you may have invested so much. timing is everything and the timing was not right. for the administration to take bold action. after all, we just lost 30 brave men in afghanistan. we are still involved in iraq. no sooner had the administration answered calls to get involved in libya, they were on the receiving end of a lot of complaints. why isn't gaddafi gone yet? the administration did not want to take ownership of syria and its problems. indeed, the syrian opposition has not ever called for foreign intervention.

certainly, they would like to see the regime of much more isolated and brought under far more economic pressure than it has to date. there are ways that that could be done. i think there is an understandable reluctance on the part of the administration, not knowing a lot about the opposition. obviously, those are people that any u.s. administration would be happy to deal with. there was a hesitant because they were not sure if the liberals, if the democrats were the one you could truly speak for what was going on in secret -- and syria. as brave as the opposition has been and as peaceful as it has

been, there is always that fear that one day, somebody is going to say, who allow them to rule in libya? it was the obama administration. mcveigh has been cautious. but i think -- they have been cautious. the administration is ready to call for the president to step down. not that he is going to heed that call. he and his family are fighting for their political lives. i am sure he watched a former ally of the united states, mubarak, on a hospital bed in a cage in a courtroom. i think the administration now

is in a position with the secretary general reporting back to the security council and with south africa, india and, at and theil agaian just met with syrian foreign minister. meanwhile, it could be expected that turkey will be much willing to take visible actions to further isolate the regime as well as the european union without waiting for security council resolutions. having said all that, i would hope the administration would recognize that barring the crew

-- the coup, that this is a regime that does command the loyalty thus far of extensive and overlapping security services, certain elite units in the military. while i do not have precise numbers, a couple of weeks ago, a state department officials said they did not believe at that time that more than zero thousand syrian soldiers had defected. -- more than a thousand syrian soldiers had defected. again, the military would need to be stretched much further and we may see that in damascus. the army cannot be everywhere all the time. at some point, they may reach a breaking point.

meanwhile, there is a question how we is gone to pay all these people if the economy collapses. >> thank you very much. [applause] thank you. i think we can expect more protests and bloodshed. not that it is seen as legitimate -- there is fear of a power vacuum. there is the obligation that it might entail. i would like to know if the obama administration does go as far as to call on him to step down, i would be curious to know what you think domestic and regional effect of this kind of

pressure might be, how might it might -- how that might affect the opposition. what could be the impact of such a bold statement? thank you. >> thank you. this will encourage more people to go underground. from the leader of the united states, it will encourage more arabic countries and muslim countries to do the same. this is why when you have such international pressure, it will encourage more armies and officers to defect.

most of the syrians [unintelligible] this is why not hearing from president obama -- no remarks on syria. that is why they believe there is a bargain or a deal underground. there is a long history of that and the region. this is why it is important. what is more important for the community -- they start with the history in the 1980's. they are always making the

comparison between nowadays and the 1980's. in the 1980's, the united states did not take any position at that time. there is the statement condemning what has happened to. more than 17,000 disappeared in the 1980's. until now, nobody knows. this is why the this community hears from the united states, they understand this is quite different. we have the original context, then we have different wars.

yesterday, the foreign minister of information said exactly this country cannot be owned by one sect. this is quite different than what we had in the 1980's. this is important for president obama to say something like that. >> thank you. >> the response is always that those people invested and there is too much for them to lose and risk unless they see a clear sign that they are serious about taking a certain stand. we have seen backed -- a top army general started to consider sending money abroad to

the gulf countries. the u.s. was serious about the imposing regime. moving forward, the intelligence security forces, the top army generals, the business elite. there is no point in sending messages or trying to address the security forces. what we would propose is to

start to articulate certain messages by president obama, secretary clinton. you do not want to be associated with the regime. you did not want to be targetted afterward. you want to play a role in a prosperous syria. it is a message to the army. you have to do your own job protecting the borders. you do not want to be associated with us. -- thugs. it is giving a sweet and sour talk at the same time. a third message, there is a huge potential for business and syria after words.

given its geographic location. you need to play a role in the economic development. disassociate yourself from the regime. once these messages are articulated and we start to hear them eckardt and the major capitals, i think we will start to see some type of move. the circles around the regime will pull them to look inward. >> i will be very brief. i agree that conspiracy theories abound in close societies. they abound in our society as well. that is another subject for another day.

maybe another organization. it is important that the president of the united states himself, out and say the words. this man does not -- should no longer be president of syria. he has betrayed his people. having said that, there is not a magic incantation that will cause the regime to collapse. i would caution that we should not expect to match the day after. maybe the ambassador was allowed back as ambassador for the very reason that you suggest. having a u.s. ambassador may give a mixed message. do not get me wrong, i was for having an ambassador there. i still think it is good if he can stay there.

there'll be no false message sent. again, there is got to be a way to throw a lifeline to a lot of the people who have been keeping the regime in power. if they feel that they are going down with the regime, they're going to fight and fight very hard. >> we are going to open the floor to questions. we have about 30 minutes. we're going to take three questions at a time. the panel can take the questions that they are most interested in. i will start over here. state your name and affiliation. >> thank you. we heard a lot from the panel about their role -- the importance of the international community to create a distance.

i am interesting in hearing about the role that iran is playing. whether in terms of arms or social economics. what about the chances of the community [inaudible] decide to create its own area of influence in northern syria? very quickly, i will stick to one question. >> cnn. thank you very much. i just want to follow up. about what happens the day after if the regime -- it is not enough to get the regime to step down.

does that do anything? does that limits the u.s. influence related to the arab spring? the u.s. really is not calling the shots on the grounds. i do not know what influence we have at this point. >> we have a gentleman way in the back here. >> two of you [inaudible] what has happened? is that the punishment?

began withdon't we the iran question? >> when we initiated in late april, we suggested that the chiefs' staff of the army -- to send a message to the minorities and syria -- in this area. basically, after what happened

in egypt, the army is playing an important role. it was not about -- you did not expect after 47 years for it to happen in a few days or a few months. the question about the institution can control the country to be stable, then we suggested the role of the army. the army is professional. it is one of the largest. the army still has some respect among the syrians. if he is able to do that or not. this is why i am not surprised

but the replacement. he is a military man and has no connection to the security before. i am surprised that he cannot find any senior officers to support his initiative. for the third question regarding the obama speech and debate about the influence, we do believe that when the president of the united states says something like that, it should not be empty. there should be some translation in legal and political actions. basically, with the role of the united states as the security council with other powers, this

is why we do believe that something will help to do more actions on syria. we should understand that -- they are not conservative. much more important to understand that otherwise is not about security and the army general. the allies have huge contributions to the syrian society. a lot of big names in the syrian culture. they have much respect to their contribution to the syrian culture, to syrian society. this is why we do not see them

as only security. this is the huge difference. when i mentioned some names -- this is why i do not believe that they are stuck with iran at the end. they have different point of abuse. -- they have different point of view as. he said exactly that he had to leave. the last question about the opposition. the opposition, it is clear that they are fragmented. we have to understand that both regimes could last without having a united a position. it is not easy to bring all of

the figures united in a few months. libya is a different case. they appointed themselves and it goes from there. they know exactly what they want. they know exactly what they want from the regime. this is why the regime and i did some opposition figures -- none of the opposition attended. they said it is an important strategy. there are certain conditions

that should bring the army back to its place. before that, none of us would accept. >> i want to answer the question on iran's involvement. saudi arabia is quite concerned and most of the recent shifts in is due to the concerns of the influence in the country. yes, there is a iranian support. we also have reports on the

planning of the guerrilla wars and fighting. they are quite heavily involved. iran and syria, they have a joint committee. irrigation, transportation, communication. it is a joint committee on x and y. they are quite involved. does the u.s. have a dog in this fight? it certainly does. >> [inaudible] >> by articulating certain messages.

engaging with the regional powers, having the same agenda. this is already taking place. pressuring china and russia and the security council to pass a resolution, referring back to icc. you need a champion to lead that effort and we hope the u.s. will continue leading the effort internationally. in a strong establishment to keep the country together the day after. that is why you were calling upon the military. one of the feasible scenarios being articulated, regardless of the probability, when things reach a cliff, top army

generals will not fall off the cliff. they will arrested the chief said the intelligence. -- of intelligence. some of the tribal leaders on the eastern side of the country. bring on board some of the civil society and respected figures in syria. to form some kind of a transitional council or a national council that will lead to a second stage until we have a referendum or a constitution. that is one of the most probable scenario is when things reach a tipping point, which we hope will be soon. >> i will try to be brief.

as i indicated, i think the administration is right to be cautious. continue to be a bit cautious. you know, a regime like this one, has wiped out civil society. they have always wanted to set up this dichotomy, it is other us -- the only place the people could meet were in mosques or churches. other places, it was illegal to have gatherings. that is a game that a lot of regimes in the region have played. it has left syria in a difficult situation where when the regime goes, i am not saying there will be a vacuum, but there are many

strains within the opposition as to what should be done. it is concerning. i think it would be good for the u.s. that the regime falls. after all, the regime has done has no favors over the years. it would deal a blow to iran. it could conceivably give love and non -- lebanon some more breathing room. but not guaranteed. if we sell a democratic syria, still demanding the return, it would be harder for israel to say they did not have a credible negotiating partner. i do not think this country can afford to allow public opinion to believe that we are going to

do whatever it takes to get him out. if you have been watching the stock market lately, and our treasury bonds, you may see that we have some other problems right now. this idea -- i do not see that happening. i agree there would be great irony for the lebanese. they would try to set up their own state. how are you going to keep them down on the farm after they have been down in the big cities? they are not going back to those mountains. >> thank you. >> the gentleman in the corner. gentleman over here, second. >> today, the ap ran a story about hezbollah and its

shrinking image. it alleged collusion with the syrian regime and a crackdown. can you comment on that? is hezbollah actually involved in this in some way? is it just speculation? >> [inaudible] >> [inaudible] i was wondering what the utility of a non-violent movement in syria is. but the beginnings and endings are. -- what the beginnings and endings are. >> [inaudible]

would you care to comment if there is a routine change in syria? -- regime change in syria? did he misread the political comment -- climate? >> thank you. do you want to start? >> regarding hezbollah, from april, the people started to believe that has below was going

back into the regime in different ways. this is why [unintelligible] later on, we started hearing from witnesses on the ground, specifically the snipers. the high number of casualties of the syrian people were killed by snipers yesterday, yesterday, they killed one of my friends. there are only 50. it is not a large number. this is why we start talking about a ".

there is such ordination all of the overt -- there is such coordination all over the country. they know exactly the only tactic by cracking down. when they stop the killings, they have five or 6 million on the ground. they know that. this is why they continued the killings. i do not expect such kind of high level of killing. every day. this is why the eyewitnesses start talking about the snipers are mainly from hezbollah. we need more communication about

this issue. there are some credible stories by some eyewitnesses on the ground that those people are not security because they are not professional snipers. the second issue about the non- violence, the syrians choose not because they have been trained, the only way to tackle the regime by nonviolence. they know if they start violence, but response by the regime would be so harsh. they note exactly the story in the 1980's of hama. after three years, we're still

talking about the number. nobody knows exactly how many have been killed. some experts say 20,000, others say 25,000. this is why the syrian people choose nonviolence. they know exactly. they know if they turn to be violent, serial to return it -- serial return to a civil war. they start learning some tactics in nonviolence. adopting this by using different ways. there are many ways.

different ways, but still keep itself non-violent. they know the other way will turn the country to a civil war. at the same time, smuggling lebanon, when and 1 you see security rating your house, and this has been confirmed. four women have been raped. there are other stories. you cannot actually convince those activist to keep nonviolence.

right now, we are facing this challenge. every day, we are receiving calls. the alternative will be much more difficult. >> thank you. >> hezbollah involved, of course, many levels. snipers, tactics, strategies. videos documenting people were captured and they are speaking in a lebanese accent. that is a confirmed fact. on the nonviolent, you cannot expect any thing to be 100%. it is largely in nonviolence. out of conviction that we should

not be pushed to fall into these traps. >> [inaudible] >> people have seen libya and egypt. they know what is going to prolong the conflict and caused more casualties. no one wants that. they do not want to see the infrastructure of the country destroyed. the shortest route is cheaper in terms of life cost rather than going into an armed conflict. >> there were reports of some sectarian killings about a month ago. >> it is part of not being able to control. the only institution in the world that you can control is the military.

and this is not a military operation. it is public and private. tribal leaders are very eager to do something with regards to weapons. the minute view use of arms, the regime will respond in a completely different way. just opposing ever seem -- we have seen this in many videos. they say, just shoot, i don't care. the question about lebanon, i believe that to the ambassador.

the interview with the wall street journal, i do not think he realized that something is being prepared and launched march 15. not even his security forces or his intelligence or army. they always tell us that this is a -- i started the eastern european. i applied the model on syria. my professor said at the time, why are you wasting your time? apparently, i was not wasting my time. [laughter] >> i would agree. it is amazing that the syrian

demonstrators have been as peaceful as they have. obviously, there have been revenge killings. there certainly have been some credible reports of officers having been killed in ambushes. it is not widespread. the regime would probably like nothing better for a significant minority of the demonstrators to take up arms. then that would give the license to really go crazy. they would be inviting and the foreign press. see, we told you. this is what was going on. interest inody's the entire region that this turned into jordan sectarian warfare. one has a sense of the family

who ruled syria is deliberately trying to implicate a lot of people in the army in its crimes. make them complicity so that they will fare any change of power whatsoever. obviously, lebanon -- it would not be good for them if this turned into a sectarian clashes and civil war in syria. we already saw clashes in tripoli. not for the first time. it would be bad. >> i want to remind everybody that are serious issue is on sale in the lobby. i'm afraid we are out of time grade -- i'm afraid we're out of time. [applause] [applause]